Your Golf Game

Recent Profile Visitors

I always assume that rules infractions are done accidentally and without intent, unless further actions prove otherwise.
I always approach players with an attitude that they have made a mistake, not that they have cheated - and I will always bring infractions to light before they have been committed, if possible, to avoid any penalty on the other player.
I also understand that some people have a difficult time confronting people on rules infractions. I am not trying to be judgmental toward that viewpoint - I really do understand that we are all wired differently.
Having said all of that, when players knowingly break rules in my presence I have no problem calling them on it. Always as politely as possible, but also as firmly as necessary. If people don't care to cheat in front of me, I have no problem letting them know that I know that they are cheating. It is at times uncomfortable, but I always try to remember that there are many honest people out there playing by the rules. I feel that if I allow a fellow competitor to cheat, I'm in essence helping to cheat those honest golfers in the field.
As an addendum, I will say that usually once someone knows that you are going to stand up for the field and play by the rules, problems almost always cease. The vast majority of the golfing population, I think (and hope), is honest.

OP, you were put into a miserable situation. Sadly, there are those who abuse the rules and disgrace the honor of the game. You handled the situation in a very professional manner, I think, and I respect the fact that you reported the beach. I would have handled it differently, though. It doesn't mean that my way was what you should have done - its just how I would have reacted.
The first time I thought that I witnessed him doing this I would have told him that it looked like he marked incorrectly, explained what I thought that I had seen, and informed him that I was not exactly certain that this is what he had done but that it was an improper mark (if that is actually what had happened). If he denied the improper mark I would have apologized, explained that I must have made the mistake and dropped the subject (for the time being).
The second time he performed the improper mark, I would have suggested - before he putted - that he replace the ball in the correct spot and that I was certain this time that he had marked improperly. Had he refused, I would have requested that a tournament official be called to our group. If he did indeed continue and putt out from the wrong spot, I would have continued play while continuing to request an official from the tournament meet up with our group after each infraction.
The first time he did this, it may have been a mistake. The second time, and all subsequent occurrences would have been blatant cheating (especially after I called him on each instance and requested each time that he replace correctly before putting out).
It probably would not have been a very enjoyable round of golf for either of us, but at the end I would have known that he was a blatant cheater and he would have known that I knew he was a cheater and that I was just as blatant in my defense of the field. (And he most likely would not have finished 2nd, unless he had absolutely no conscience whatsoever and could endure my correcting him for every beach of the rule.)
The fact that his parents were there would have made no difference to me.
League play is a completely different matter. Lots of leagues take great liberties with the rules and you just have to accept that if you choose to play these kinds of rounds.

You could be correct, but I really doubt this was what Phil was asking. You can always move your tee to a different location on the tee box.
This could have been what the official thought he was asking, but his reply to Phil indicates otherwise - at least to me.

I may be mistaken, but it appeared to me that when the official returned to inform Phil of the penalty, he was asked if moving to a new spot on the tee box would have negated the penalty. He seemed ito suggest that had Phil moved his tee he wouldn't have incurred the penalty. That is incorrect, of course.

In my view, the official either:
(1) made a mistake telling Phil that he could have avoided a penalty by teeing in a different spot, or
(2) misunderstood and thought that Phil was asking if he had moved the tee before stomping down the grass (this seems very unlikely to me, as it would really make very little sense - of course if he moved and didn't stomp the grass there is no penalty).

I didn't find it to be funny.
I don't think it showed guts. I think that it showed a complete meltdown mentally. I also think that it reflects poorly on his character (and I've always liked Phil). What bothers me the most, really, is that I think he was dishonest in his representation of what his thought process was concerning the action.
If following the rules and showing internal fortitude makes someone a "heads down stiff", then I guess I would be one who would admire the "stiffs".
You are correct, I suspect, about there being backlash regardless of the ruling. There are always folks with different views and opinions (and that isn't a bad thing - it adds diversity to the world). Had he been DQ'd, some people would have been upset by it while others would have applauded it. While I respect the views that are different from mine, I do not agree with them.
Personally, had I been the committee, I would have DQ'd him under rule 1-2. Having said that, the rules concerning this issue are not as straightforward as I think they should be (but I'm no rules expert). I would expect that the governing bodies might now consider making changes to the wording concerning this issue - at least I would hope that they would.

While I think that DQ should be the result for any action like the one Phil pulled on Saturday, does this exception to rule 1-2 not prohibit the use of 1-2 in dealing with this case?
From the RoG: "1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2."
If so I personally think that the wording needs to be changed to allow for 1-2 to be used (admittedly without much thought into other ramifications).

I think that when Phil slapped that moving ball, he had absolutely no idea what his penalty would be - and I don't think that he cared, at that moment in time. He simply lost his composure and had a complete brain freeze, I think.
I'm of the opinion that this rule needs to be changed so that future occurences of this result in DQ.

That was a really cool exchange, I thought. CBS went to commercial and I switched over to the featured group channel just in time to catch that. When CBS came back from the ad break, they of course showed the shot but did not give viewers the discussion (I would have thought that they would have shown it).
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Greller dies that sort of thing quite often.

Ok, I'll try to adequately explain.
There were quite a few posts about Reed and his family issues. My post was an attempt to say that those issues are private and should be of little to no concern of golf fans.
My original post stated: "His issues during his college career, however, are issues that are pertinent to the general golf public."
To more accurately state what I was originally trying to say, I suppose it would have been more to the point to say: "His issues during his college career, if they are in fact true, are issues that could be more pertinent to the general golf public."
Being self-critical, the last sentence in that paragraph does seem to be an indictment of Reed (something that I honestly didn't intend because I have no knowledge of the truthfulness of the allegations): "Hopefully, he has matured and grown into an adult that now understands the error of his ways." It would have been better stated had I posted: "Hopefully, if the allegations from college are indeed factual, hopefully he has matured and grown into an adult that now understands the error of his ways."
Going back and re-reading my first post, I can see that my response was more critical of Patrick Reed than I intended. To that, I plead guilty.
I am ambivalent toward DJ as far as being a fan.
That comment was not meant to address his personal life.

You don't know why I brought them up, yet you accuse me of thinking that they are true.
My original post was in response to the earlier posts about his family issues.
If you go back to my original post (#1573), I readily acknowledge that Reed has game.